18 Answers

I would strongly suggest that you consider selling your current car
and finding a manual transmission if this is what you want.... It's
going to be a VERY EXPENSIVE endeavor to do what you plan to
do...I would advise you to keep your automatic transmission
though...WHY? Automatic transmissions are easier to sell, get
better mileage, less maintenance, and in many cases go a longer
distance than manual transmissions ( clutch replacement). Ask
yourself why is this important.. especially on a 17 year old vehicle?

What evidence do you have that automatics get better gas mileage?
This may be true of CVT's out on the highway but not 4 speed
Subaru automatics. You can't count clutch replacement as "go a
longer distance than manual transmissions". I would take a 5 or 6
speed manual over a 4 speed auto any day.

F_O_R-. Hope you have a Happy July 4th tomorrow.... here's
something on this subject.... actually, the advancement over the past
25 years have made automatic transmissions the number one
choice for most people...and since more new cars sold today are
automatics, it only follows that the highest market for used vehicles
is automatic NOT manual transmissions.... please tell me.. you're not
going to suggest that this guy try and switch out his automatic 2001
car and have a manual transmission installed?? It's not worth doing.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/18/greenlings-why-do-
automatic-transmissions-now-get-better-fuel-e/

This article was written in 2010 and the operative language is .....
"n the last 25 years, there have been three major advances to
automatic transmissions that have made the biggest difference in
fuel economy gains: more gear ratios, lock-up torque converters and
electronic controls. Lock-up converters incorporate a mechanical
clutch that can hard-couple the pump and turbine when the vehicle
is cruising with no transmission shifting. The clutch allows the
torque converter to achieve near-100 percent efficiency. In recent
years, engineers have also been able to utilize electronic controls to
increase the proportion of time that the torque converter is locked,
further increasing efficiency."

Of course, technology keeps rolling forward.... I know you and a lot
of other people love the old days....the 60s...who doesn't remember
those days..gas guzzling behemoths that are now LESS safe than
today's vehicles.

Are you really trying to lecture me on transmissions Mark? Really?
Lots of people consider a manual to be superior and more desirable
than an automatic and would buy them if they were available.
Considering that automatics cost more, cars with automatics are
worth more. Rocket science I know.

People (not you I know) do remember those old cars with great
fondness and those cars are highly desirable unlike today's
Subaru's will be when they are 40-50 years old. Boring eco cars
that think for you and interfere with driving with electronic gizmos
will be so much junk and never will be desirable and are simply
transportation appliances destined for the crusher.

F_O_R- I would never suggest that I know more about cars than you
do, especially when you owned a 1962 Jaguar . Look, I grew up in
the 60s, I owned a 57 Chevy, and many 60s cars. I remember cars
from the 1960s....they burned fuel like nobody's business. They
didn't handle particularly well, they were money pits.....and as for
performance...it took a 455 V8 engine in a 1968 Oldsmobile 88 to go
to 60 MPH in 10 seconds what my Subaru Outback Limited does
with it's 2.5 Four...so, don't get me started on efficiency.... please.
These OLD "improvements", as you call them are baloney!
AND, I've said this time and time again.....I DON'T collect cars.
WHY do you think that more than 95 percent of cars sold today are
automatics?? The reason is simple... people want them.
By the way, what do you think they use at the Indy 500??? Automatic
or manual??

Actually a Hurst/Olds 442 in 1968 would annihilate your car in a
drag race. 0 - 60 in 5.4 seconds with street tires. No doubt it would
be far faster with slicks as cars back then were traction limited. Of
course this car is worth 5 times what your car is and will continue to
appreciate. Stick to your automatic appliances Mark, they suit you.

F_O_R -. I'm really glad you brought this up.... that Olds 442 with that
enormous engine, heavy front end and lethargic handling would
never keep up in any kind of slalom with a WRX STI.. that has a 2.5
Four..... This is exactly what I'm talking about..... O-60 in 4.8 seconds,
top speed 155 mph..

F_O_R-. NOW you're going to tell me how a 1960s car can compete
with a Toyota Prius that gets 50 MPG...... It can't...NO car from the
1960s got 50 MPG....... AND, on the other side of the spectrum, no
car from the 1960s could claim zero MPG and go 0-60 in 5 seconds
like the TESLA. So, you think that the TESLA is junk.. because it's
new technology?

Go ahead and keep your older 1960s cars...... Their large
displacement engines, polluting inefficient systems, and constant
breakdowns....are you really going to tell me that older cars are less
expensive to maintain than newer cars.? Are new cars expensive to
repair when they break down..? Maybe? The difference between
them is that newer cars don't break down as often. Much longer
interval between actual repairs. As for me getting a WRX STI...
not going to happen.....too harsh of a ride, too noisy, it's a young
person's car..... I used that as a an example to point out that engine
displacement is NOT consistent with performance. Too bad you
missed that point completely.

F_O_R- you don't have an answer for the 50 MPG... because. That's
technology for you.... even though we're living in the technology age
where this is possible. SO, your RIDICULOUS assessment of boring
cars with electronic gizmos... made these modern marvels with
achievements of 50 MPG a reality. And, front and side airbags... not
from the 1960s...

On the subject of collecting.cars....only if you could AFFORD to
maintain the cars all those years...plus insurance premiums,
breakdowns just from time elapsing, etc......IN 1974, I actually looked
and test drove a 1970 Olds 442 W30 .... dealership wanted $3,500
for the car.... Remember, that was 43 years ago.... Sure, it's worth
more today.... So what.. so is real estate... What's your point?
Cars are tools... NOT investments. By the way, that was the height
of the gas crisis, odd and even days to fill up.. a car that got maybe
10 MPG was not particularly desirable.. had a cruising range around
180 miles with some left over for reserve... Still, the same mileage
today, IF you were lucky enough to be able to properly maintain the
car and get all the parts you need..... AND, by the time you did all
that, you might break even on all the costs you put in.... Maybe?

I don't give a Dam about your Prius Mark. It would be grossly
inefficient for all the uses I have. Your willful ignorance has become
tiresome. Go polish your coexist bumper sticker and drive your
Prius 40 mph in the fast lane.

I have an '06 2.5i Outback with a broken 5MT manual transmission. I'd
lik2013e to swap in either a newer revision ~2013-ish manual transmission
or ~'08-ish Legacy GT transmission. The bellhousing sh...

Content submitted by Users is not endorsed by CarGurus, does not express the opinions of CarGurus, and should not be considered reviewed, screened, or approved by CarGurus. Please refer to CarGurus Terms of Use.